The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 186

'\""C'r~. 2-4.-For (this is an inetnnceofth<> of the Textus Rccoptus rests on no authority, 11pplfo11 lion of the general principle, adduced beingapparontly only I\ oon_jectureof Dez1\'H,) Bll suiting the subject in hand) the woman There are VA.l'ious ways of ex.plo.ining. (1) tha~ ~th a.n h~sbnd (IJ.ra.vlipos, implying That (notwithstl\uding the reosons agoinst suhJec-tion, meaning properlv, that is ,mder the supposition thl\t ho.ve just been given) an h~nd) is bound to her living husband; it is the Lato, and not the man, that is con- but if the hUBba.nd die, she is loosed ceived as ho.ving died in the death of (irr.-1/p-y,rra.i; of. ver. 6 11.nd Gal. v. 4. The Christ. Eph. ii. 15 and Col. ii. 14 may be WC'rd expre.."SeS the entire abolition of the referred to 1\8 supporting this oonoeption. olai.m of the husband's law over her) from Thus the ill ustro.tion and the application the law of ihe hUBbaD.cl. So then if, while the are ma.de to hang together, the law of the huba.nd livet.h, llhe be married to another husband being regarded ns having died in man, llhe shall be oalled a.n adulteress: but the husband's deatb, as the Lato genoro.lly if the husband die, she is free from the Law, to us in Christ's de11th ; o.nd we have already BO that Bhe is no adulteress, though she be seen how ver. l may be forced into corre- married to another ma.n. Wherefore, my spondence. This view of the Law itself breihren, :re also were made dead to the being regarded as ha.ving died has the Law through the body of Christ; that ye weigbty support of Origen, Ohrysostom, should be married to another, even to him Theophylact, Ambrose, and other Greek who was raised from the dead, that we may Fathers. Chrysostom accounts for the apostle bring forth fruit 'IIDto God. The general introducing a different conception in ver. 4 drif't of the above verses is plain enough ; by suggesting that he avoided saying ex- name1"t", that, as iD all cases death frees a plicitly tllat the Law had died, for fear of man 1rom the claims of hwna.n law, and, wounding the Jews : To lu<o>..ou8ov ~" d..-o,v, in particular, as death frees the wife from "Oa--re, l.6,>..,pol, ob ,cvp«{,., iJµ.wv 6 v&µ.os· l,.,r/- the claims of marital law, so that she may 9a.v• -y6.p, 'AA>..' ob,c ,f.,,,v oU-rc,,s, fva. µ.~ ..-Mj(71 marry again, so tbe death of Christ, into -robs 'louliulous. This explano.tion hardly which we were baptized, frees 1lll from the commends itself as satisfactory; and be- claims of the law which formerly bound us, sides, in addition to what has been already so that we may be married spiritually to said, it may be observed that throughout the risen Saviour, apart from the old the whole passage there is no phrase to sug- dominion of law, and consequently of sin. gest in itself the idea of the Law's deo.th, But it is not eo easy to exple.iD the int.ended but only of some death which emancipates Bil&logy in preciBe t.erms, there being e.n from law (ver. 1 being ta.ken in its natural appsrent discrepance between the illustra- seI1Se, and &1ro6dvov-ros, in ver. 4, being ll<l• tion end the application with regard to the cepted as the undoubtedly true reading). parties supposed to die. Even before the (2) That in the illustration the wife is really application there is a seeming discrepe.noe supposed to die when the husband dies. of this kind between the general stat.ement The death of either party to the marriage- of ver. 1 end the :instence given in ver. 2. bond cancels it; and when one dies, the Far in ver. l it is (according to the view we other virtual.ly dies to the law that both have taken of it) the death of the person were under. Thus the statement of prin- who had been I1I1der law that frees him ciple in ver. 1, the particular illustration from it, whereas in ver. 2 it is the death of in vers. 2, 3, and the application are made the husband (representillg law) that frees to hang together. Meyer takes this view the wife from the law she had been under. decidedly, and oites Eph. v. 28, seq., to show Bence the interpretation of ver. 1 above that the husbo.nd's death may be considered referred to, according to which Zat.o, and as implying the wife's death e.Iso. (3) That not a ma,i, is the I1I1deratood nominative to there i, a discrepance between the illustra- u,,e0,,_ But, even if this interpretatiOD were tion and the application, the husbo.nd being oomridered tenable, we should not thus regarded as dying in the former, and our- get rid of the 11t1baequent apparent dis- selves, who represent the wife, in the latter: crepanoe between the illustration and the but tha.t this is of no consequence ; the ideo., application. For iD the former it is the oommon to both, of death abrogating the death of the h'll8band that frees the wife ; claims of law being sufficient for the apostle's whereas in the latter it BeeJD11 to be the argument. Death, it may be said, however death of ounelvee, who a!llfWer to the wife, regarded in the application, is an ideal con- in the death of Christ, that f:teea us. For ception, and not au actual fact with respeot that it is ounelvee that are regarded as to ourselves; and it is immaterial how it is having died to the Law with Christ appears regarded, aa long as the idea comes out that not only from other pa.uag011 (e.g. vm. 2, a, through death, i.e. ours in the death of 4, 7, 8, 11, i.n eh. vi), but alBo, in the passage Chriat, we are freed from the dominion of before us, from '6ua.-r'19,,,.,-• in ver. 4, a.nd. l,:ro• law. (So, in ctrect, De Wette, and also B,z,,d,,.,.u in l'er, 6. (The reading ii:ro9,z,,6nos Alford.) (4) '!'hat the former hueb1md i., on. vn.1-25.] TilE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 18?,